Monkeys with PhDs

John Loftus fired off a hasty reaction-piece to our review of TCD. I’ll comment on some of the highlights–or should I say, lowlights?

“I've had enough contact with Triablogue authors to know that I will never get in the last word. And I do not consider them honest in dealing with me. They will quote things out of context and misrepresent me because as Calvinists they do not think I deserve any respect at all. After all, if their God has foreordained me to hell then they have the right to heap additional abuse on me, and they have done so (this is such a nice version of Christianity developed by angry men for angry men, isn't it?).”

That’s a nice window into his persecution complex. Did he dash that off that from his headquarters in his abandoned missile silo somewhere in Kansas?

“I contacted the contributors of TCD to see if any of them would like to respond to this hatchet job of an online book.”

Well, ever since the Gorical convinced me of the imminent perils of global warming, I try to economize whenever possible. Why use an ax on something as flimsy as the TCD when a hatchet will do?

“Most of us have better things to do than respond to such drivel. If their arguments are considered good ones then it goes to show you that when it comes to faith any argument will do.”

He talks about arguments, but he doesn’t give an argument.

“I find it amazing that some people think this is a good rebuttal to our book. It isn't, not by a long shot. No wonder Christians have the edge. They respond to every skeptical book with three or four or ten book-length responses. Since they always have the last word and because people cannot think through the issues, the last word is what seems the most reasonable.”

He seems to think the Christian faith is a free fire zone where which he should be at liberty to turn his guns on the Christian faith, but we have no right to return fire.

“What strikes me as a common criticism of TCD is that there are fifteen chapters in the space of 419 pages, and as such, it isn't as in-depth as whole books written on each of the topics we cover. Well I'm here to tell you that this is simply not an informed way to judge anthologies especially since each chapter in TCD has plenty of footnotes for further reading (did they not notice them?). For people who wish to truly evaluate the case we make in each chapter they must read the works listed in the footnotes. It's that simple.”

Well, if it’s that simple, then it’s that simple in reverse. Our review of TCD also contains plenty of footnotes, so unbelievers who wish to truly evaluate our review of the TCD must read the books listed in the footnotes. It’s that simple.

“We DO know what we're talking about.”

If you put it in CAPS, that must make it true.

“To criticize any chapter because of the limited space available to the author without exploring the works in the footnotes is, well, not reading it thoroughly or engaging it very deeply.”

Well, when you deal with something as shallow as TCD, scratching the surface creates the Grand Canyon.

“Over and over we read where atheists have no right to make moral judgments if there are no absolute objective morals. This is simply false. They are ignorant to say otherwise. But this is true of most Christians.”

We quoted his own contributors to the TCD! You know, like Eller and Avalos. They explicitly reject moral absolutes.

What is more, his precious Outsider Test is simply a variant on cultural relativism. And moral relativism is a variant of cultural relativism. If you subscribe to cultural relativism, then that relativizes social mores as well.

“Then too, the authors are Calvinists which I think is a reprehensible theology, as I posted here.”

i) Actually, Jason Engwer is not a Calvinist.

ii) In addition, Loftus is rehashing the same objection he already raised in TCD. And I rebutted that objection in my review.

“Over and over the authors contrast their brand of Christianity with atheism which is left undefined but understood by them to be equivalent to metaphysical naturalism. I don't think they truly know what atheism is, as I explained right here, and again here.”

I see. Well, according to atheist Evan Fales, writing for The Cambridge Companion to Atheism:

Naturalism and physicalism are metaphysical positions commonly associated with atheism…Naturalism and physicalism are, therefore, natural allies of atheism, and offer a philosophical framework within which atheism finds a natural home (118).

“Besides, the options before us are not between their brand of conservative Calvinism and non-belief. The options are myriad with everything in-between. There is Arminianism, moderate and liberal Christianities, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and many eastern religions to choose from. So it really does not make a whit of difference who is making a particular argument against their brand of Christianity.”

Really? Then why is The Christian Delusion called the Christian Delusion–rather than the Mormon Delusion, The Buddhist Delusion, the Hindu Delusion, The Hasidic Delusion, The Ellen G. White Delusion, or The Saracen Delusion?

Furthermore, TCD targets conservative evangelicalism. It doesn’t focus its fire on Don Cupitt or John Spong.

“The argument either stands on its own or not. They cannot assert, for instance, that an atheist cannot make this or that kind of argument because he has no standard for morality, since Process Theologians can make that same argument as can Arminians like Christian philosopher Victor Reppert (which they have repeatedly attacked) or liberals like James McGrath.”

If Victor Reppert or Alfred North Whitehead were moral relativists, then they’d be in the same bind. And it won’t do to bring up McGrath since I’ve already argued him down.

“Then too, the Triabloguers forget that the reason why there are moderates and liberals and process theologians is precisely because many of them grew up as conservative Christians and found the arguments we have expressed in TCD to be telling against their faith. It's precisely because of these arguments that led us away from conservative Christianity in the first place.”

It’s true that apostates have a stereotypical deconversion process. But the fact that apostates are typecast to read from the same script bodes ill for their claims to be free-thinkers.

“Steve Hays asks me on page 4 to justify my assumptions. Well, if he read Why I Became an Atheist then he would see that I did just that.”

That’s symptomatic of Loftus’ egocentrism. What I actually said is:

“If, however, The Christian Delusion is directed at believers as well as unbelievers, then the contributors can‘t simply take their own methods and assumptions for granted. They can‘t treat their own social mores as the default position. They can‘t treat secular moral realism as the default position. They can‘t treat methodological naturalism as the default position. And so on. If the contributors are attempting to persuade Christians to abandon their faith, then the contributors must justify their operating assumptions. Otherwise, the whole exercise is question-begging and unconvincing from the get-go.”

Notice that my comment wasn’t limited to Loftus. Moreover, why would Loftus call in the cavalry if he thinks that he can do it all by his little lonesome?

“In areas where it’s obvious we should expect a perfectly good God to communicate his will better, he didn’t do so, which caused a great deal of harm done in his name by the church (think Inquisition, crusades, witch hunts, Christian attempts at genocide during the Thirty Years War directed at other Christian groups, Slavery, the treatment of women, and denial of the democratic ideals of the freedom of religion and of expression).”

Of course, this is simply incoherent. Loftus doesn’t think the Bible is unclear on these issues. To the contrary, he thinks the Bible is clearly wrong.

It’s a work of supererogation to refute Loftus. You only have to quote him to refute him. He does the rest.

“But in other areas through good sound Biblical scholarship we can discern what the Biblical authors probably meant to say. Take for instance their claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. We know this is simply ignorant.”

Of course, that’s circular. He defines “good sound Bible scholarship” as scholarship that just so happens to agree with him.

“Furthermore, the two last chapters in TCD are examples of the delusional thinking Christians have used to defend their faith, so they are indeed relevant to the book as a whole. Christians have repeatedly come along after social/political/scientific changes and claimed it was Christianity that produced these changes. The arguments of the last two chapters show this is not the case, nor is it the case when it comes to the rise of democracy, feminism, environmentalism, and animal rights.”

The chapter by Hector Avalos is basically a critique of an argument by Dinesh D'Souza while the chapter by Carrier is basically a critique of an argument by Rodney Stark. But even if Stark and D’Souza overstated their case, that doesn’t begin to disprove Christianity.

“Ken Pulliam said...These guys at Tribalogue are not worthy of a response. First, they are not scholars as were the authors of TCD. Second, because they are not scholars they don't understand the issues involved. They just merely presuppose that their holy book is perfect and that anyone who disagrees is of the devil.”

i) If the contributors to TCD are real scholars, while we are not, then it should be all the easier to knock us down.

ii) Are the contributors to TCD “scholars”? For instance, is Babinski a scholar? He contributed an essay on ANE cosmology. Is he a Hebraist? Does he read cuneiform? Does he publish learned articles in BASOR?

iii) From the Darwinian standpoint, what does it mean to be a scholar? To be a monkey with a PhD?

iv) Is TCD written by and for scholars? It wasn’t published by an academic publishing house like Oxford, Harvard, or Cambridge.

v) If scholars don’t understand the issues, then what does that say about the natural constituency for TCD? The average atheist who reads TCD can’t grasp the issues. The poor dear.